Follow the money, find the agenda

Summary: Those same old 'echo chamber' type of events, set up with the sole intention/purpose of controlling debates about patent law and practice, carry on and the 'usual suspects' are still in charge

IT IS bad enough that Trump has put the USPTO in the hands of the patent microcosm (Iancu, whose firm had worked for Trump prior to the nomination). Do we want the debates too to always be controlled by the patent microcosm? It's just a gigantic, nonstop lobbying-fest.

"Do we want the debates too to always be controlled by the patent microcosm? It's just a gigantic, nonstop lobbying-fest."Last week IAM advertised this "free IAM webinar" about PTAB, shortly after Patent Docs had done the advertising for IAM. So IAM, led by that patent nut Richard Lloyd (we say "patent nut" in the same vein as "gun nut"), will liaise with the patent microcosm (Finnegan yet again) to distract from particular patent cases and basically lobby under the umbrella of 'webinar'. Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP is a very large patent litigation firm; they're also 'boot lickers' of the Battistelli regime because of UPC agenda and patent maximalism. Only days ago they wrote this puff piece, failing to note that the Boards of Appeal have come under attack at EPO. Convenient omission? Either way, this is what they said:

Earlier this year, the European Patent Office (EPO) released their annual statistics report for 2017 which made for very interesting reading in a number of areas. In particular, this covers the first full year passed since the EPO initiated their Early Certainty from Opposition scheme in July 2016 aiming to bring the length of opposition proceedings down to an average of 15 months from the end of the nine month opposition window.

The quality indicators section of the report shows that that the average (median) duration of oppositions has now dipped below two years from 24.8 months in 2016 to 22.4 months in 2017, around a ten percent change. The average duration was 26.1 months in 2015, hence a five percent shift in 2016.

Last month, the EPO Boards of Appeal issued their annual report for 2017 which shows, unlike oppositions, the average duration of opposition appeal proceedings has increased, albeit slightly, from 34 months in 2016 to 35 months in 2017. In 2015 the average length was also 34 months.

Isn't it incredible that they fail to mention EPO scandals? Even when speaking about the EPO Boards of Appeal? It's just like IAM, the EPO's unofficial mouthpiece. It doesn't seem to matter how much illegality and corruption happens at the EPO, they will never even bring up the subject.

"We're not sure why David Ruschke even bothers with these. Those people in the stacked panels are the same people who constantly attack PTAB (and him personally)."Meanwhile, the Federal Circuit Bar Association (nothing to do with the Federal Circuit itself but with the patent microcosm) says it will have "Chief Judge David Ruschke of Patent Trial and Appeal Board" among other people in an upcoming event and here comes another "webinar" about PTAB. Watch who attends:

Matthew L. Fedowitz, Philip L. Hirschhorn, and Christopher M. Cherry of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney will guide patent counsel on the use of secondary considerations at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), examine what works and what does not when seeking to defeat validity challenges, review Federal Circuit decisions addressing secondary considerations evidence presented in an IPR trial, and offer best practices for arguing secondary considerations at the PTAB.

The Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO), another patent extremists' front group (it even pushes software patents and UPC agenda in Europe), mentions "David Ruschke, Chief Judge of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board" as present in this stacked panel that includes Finnegan and Jones Day. To quote:

The Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) will offer a one-hour webinar entitled "A New PTAB Landscape: The Impact of SAS, Recent Federal Circuit Decisions, and the Proposed Change to the BRI Standard" on May 31, 2018 from 2:00 to 3:00 pm (ET).

That was a few days ago. We can imagine how 'objective' it was, coming in the form of a "webinar" from IPO.

This is all pretty normal. Each week the patent microcosm holds such 'events' or so-called 'webinars' in which no technical people are present, just a bunch of lawyers like themselves. They push an agenda rather than share information. We're not sure why David Ruschke even bothers with these. Those people in the stacked panels are the same people who constantly attack PTAB (and him personally). Has he not noticed? ⬆